Stony Brook University - SUNY Digital Repository

In Faigley’s estimation, “synthesis,” this means of
“reinterpret[ing] and integrat[ing]” writing theory and
practice, is absolutely necessary if narrow perceptions of
composition, and its simple academic significance, are to be
undone. Simply put, to dissolve those limitations, the all-toosimply
installed and all-too-common borders that separate
theories must be themselves dissolved. Those limited and
limiting divisions must be seen as, more often than not, nothing
but constructions for convenience’s sake and, thus, writing
itself must be seen from a much more “dynamic” perspective. For
Faigley, and for myself, those borders must be re-seen – they
must be crossed and they must be defied - if a truer potential
for writing and the teaching of writing are to be realized.
Again, what is needed is a dialectic: a dialectic between
those philosophical camps. I have come to define my philosophy
of teaching in terms of this dialectic, in particular, a
dialectic between what has become known as the “expressivist”
movement and that of “critical literacy,” or “critical
pedagogy.” I have always felt, deeply, a resonance between
these two schools that those borders would suppress and it has
been my undertaking to deepen that resonance by exploring it
further and further, not only philosophically but practically,
through my teaching: teaching in a real classroom with real
students doing real writing. Keeping Elbow’s warning about
176